6/5 Planning Commission meeting - Marriott parking lot application
Annette Mills
Hi, Transportation Action Team members,
As many of you know, the Marriott has requested approval of a Conditional Development to construct a parking lot off of 2nd Street at 415-435 SW 2nd Street. The staff report has been released and is available below this message, along with information about how to participate in Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting.
Community Development Director Paul Bilotta emailed me last week with the following message: “If there are any questions after looking over the staff memo, staff is available to discuss. That has sometimes been helpful for community members looking to provide testimony so they can make sure their arguments are lining up with review criteria, etc. Rian Amiton is the project planner.”
If you’re planning to testify and have questions, Rian’s email address is Rian....@corvallisoregon.gov. Please note that written testimony must be submitted by noon on Wednesday 6/5/24 so that the Planning Commission is able to consider your testimony in a timely manner.
Annette
Planning Commission
Calendar Date:
Wednesday, June 5, 2024 - 6:30pm
This Planning Commission meeting will be conducted online only.
Please contact the Planning Division (541-766-6908 or plan...@corvallisoregon.gov) if you need special accommodation to be able to participate.
How Can I Participate?
People wishing to participate may submit comments in writing, speak during the online meeting, or simply observe the meeting using the following methods:
Submit your comments in writing:
Written testimony must be submitted by noon the day of the meeting so that the Planning Commission is able to consider the submitted testimony in a timely manner. Community members may use the following link to transmit their comments electronically: https://forms.corvallisoregon.gov/Forms/MeetingRegistration
Participate via live webinar:
Registration must occur by noon the day of the meeting, if you would like to speak during the meeting. Community members may pre-register using this link: https://forms.corvallisoregon.gov/Forms/MeetingRegistration
I Just Want to Observe the Meeting:
Use this link to obtain an attendee weblink which will allow you to observe, but not speak or present during the meeting: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_FHBxCdSoSOeZ8fHJVzvk0w
I Missed this Meeting – How Do I Stay Informed?
A video and audio recording of the meeting will be available on the City’s website within a few days of the meeting.
Meeting agendas and materials are generally available one week prior to the meeting.
Read more about the Planning Commission here.
Meeting Information
More Information
View full details on our website
Lyn Larson
Rian, I do have several questions.
1. Marriott has a huge parking structure. Do they explain anywhere why they need this additional parking lot? The closest thing that I see to a rationale, from the applicant’s perspective, is on p. 55 of the application: “This application is made in response to changing needs and market forces in regards to parking.” That said, the applicant does not provide evidence that the existing parking structure is insufficient.
2. LDC 1.6.30's definition of Accessory Use is that it must be located on the same lot or site as the main use. This is not on the same site as the hotel, and yet their proposal is that it be exactly that, an accessory parking lot (use) for the Marriott. Does that matter? As explained in the staff report (p. 3-4), because the parking lot is on a separate site, the parking lot is classified as Automotive and Equipment – Parking Services use. This use requires Conditional Development approval in the CMU-3 Zone, necessitating this application. If it was on the same site, it would be permitted by-right (provided all development standards were met.)
3. Is this going to be a public parking lot, or will it be for exclusive use of Marriott customers? That definitely seems to make it an Accessory Use. The application does not say outright, but it’s suggested that it’s at least primarily for hotel staff and guests. It can only be considered Accessory if it’s on the same development site as the user. In the eyes of our Land Development Code, if it’s on a separate site (as this one is), it cannot be considered Accessory no matter who the intended user(s) is.
4. I'm always leery when the applicant says things like "compliance will be assured at the time of building permit." Seems like too many things get bulldozed/built and the applicant just says "oops." Staff does a complete review with permits to ensure full compliance. However, it’s good if we can catch potential issues at this point (the land use application stage) to require or allow for modifications to the site plan before it gets to permitting. We flagged a couple of items in the staff report that do not appear code-compliant and will need to be addressed with permits.
5. Cars entering and especially backing up in this accessory alley seems quite tight...but I find it hard to picture maneuverability from the drawings presented. Nonetheless, the vehicular circulation appears to comply with code requirements.
6. Section 4.0.40 Bike Requirements: Another driveway crossing a sidewalk in the middle of a downtown commercial block doesn't seem particularly safe to me as a constant bike rider and frequent pedestrian. Noted. This is discussed in the staff report.
7. What's a "dustpan approach?" I believe it’s the style of driveway that slopes up to the sidewalk, rather than using curb creating a step.
8. Is the building in question that would be demolished already bought by Marriott? In which case this whole thing is a bit of a sham process, and something the City does far too often...the old fait accompli in which public input is too little, too late. (Sorry, but that's my perception.) The Marriott ownership group purchased the two buildings a year or two ago. The City is not involved when private parties purchase property.
9. Just my perspective totally unrelated to any conditions of this request, I lament the continued degradation of the ambience that makes Corvallis the unique place it is. Older single family homes disappearing under 3-story cookie-cutter apartment complexes, roads being punched through once open spaces where deer could hang out reasonably safe from vehicles, and now we'd be losing another charming (well I think it's charming!) storefront that's architecturally proportional to the block it's in (unlike the Marriott looming behind it).
That's it. Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions.
To: "sustainable-corvallis-transportation" <sustainable-corval...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 10:42:51 AM
Subject: 6/5 Planning Commission meeting - Marriott parking lot application
——————
Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition
VISION: Corvallis is a hub in a regional transportation system that includes sustainable transportation modes for people and goods.
sustainablecorvallis.org/what-we-do/action-teams/transportation
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sustainable-corvallis-tr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/732901dab514%244b001180%24e1003480%24%40willamettewatershed.com.
Marjorie Stevens
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/520482110.8609350.1717434806733.JavaMail.zimbra%40peak.org.
Marjorie Stevens
Hi Marjorie et al.,
I’ve responded to your questions in red below. I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Also, for everyone’s benefit – all of the information for Wednesday’s public hearing, including how to provide testimony, is here: https://www.corvallisoregon.gov/advisorygroups-pc/page/planning-commission-19
From: Marjorie Stevens <greens...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2024 11:42 AM
To: Amiton, Rian <Rian....@corvallisoregon.gov>
Cc: Annette Mills <ami...@willamettewatershed.com>; sustainable-corvallis-transportation <sustainable-corval...@googlegroups.com>; Lyn Larson <lla...@peak.org>; Marjorie Stevens <greens...@gmail.com>
Subject: Questions Re: 6/5 Planning Commission meeting - Marriott parking lot application
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Rian,
I will add some questions to the discussion on the proposed Marriott parking lot.
Please forgive my ignorance of land use rules and protocols.
1) The tearing down of an existing building and the construction of a parking lot in its place seems at odds with the guidelines for less - not more - parking which is found in the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities rules. Could those rules be invoked to prevent the proposed parking lot? The CFEC requirements get implemented through amendments to the Land Development Code and, if necessary, the Comprehensive Plan. The City has already updated its off-street parking mandates (by removing them) and parking lot design standards to comply with the CFEC rules. So referring back to CFEC may not add much to the analysis.
2) The tearing down of an existing building and the construction of a parking lot (thanks to Joni Mitchell for the song) also seems at odds with increasing housing density downtown. Could the city's policies and guidance on downtown infill and density be used to block the parking lot development? Adopted City policy guidance can certainly be used in the Planning Commission’s evaluation and decisions on discretionary decisions. This policy guidance can be raised in staff reports, in oral and written testimony, and/or by the Commissioners themselves. For this application, there’s an evaluation of Comprehensive Plan Policies on p. 26-28 of the staff report. Finding #85 (on p. 26 of the staff report) may speak to your question about infill and density: “As mentioned above, the applicant does not provide evidence that the number of spaces within the existing structured parking is insufficient. This raises the question of whether additional surface parking serving that use is an efficient use of land, per Policies 3.2.1.B, 8.10.12, and 11.4.11.”
3) The installation of parking for the Marriott seems at odds with the TSP goal of decreasing vehicle miles traveled. Could a study be done regarding utilization of the already existing parking structure that Marriott owns as part of its motel? If that parking structure can be shown to be sufficient for the Marriott customers, could that be a reason to deny the parking lot? Per Section 4.0.60 of the Land Development Code, the City’s estimate of “generated trips” for any development proposal is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidance. Per finding #97 (p. 29 of the staff report): “ITE trip generation rates for Hotels are based on rooms, occupied rooms or employees. Parking spaces is not a published trip generator for the hotel use.” In other words, because the hotel itself is not expanding (it’s not adding rooms, event space, restaurant space, etc.), by code we cannot say that the parking lot will be adding trips to the area. Whether the existing structured parking is “sufficient” is a different question; as mentioned above, the applicant does not provide evidence that it is not.
4) The waterfront-facing Marriott property could have, but doesn't have, the potential for community interactive space. Instead, it presents a fortess-like uninviting barrier all along the waterfront frontage of the building, where there could be shops for community commerce and interaction, but it's just an impenetrable solid building wall. If the building of the parking lot cannot be stopped, could it at least be attached to a requirement to re-design the waterfront-facing ground floor of the Marriott building to be converted to exteriorally accessible shops? Bear in mind that by law any City requirement must be rooted in 2 concepts – “nexus” (the requirement must be directly related to potential negative impacts resulting from the development) and “rough proportionality” (requirement must also be roughly proportional to the potential impacts).
Disclaimer: This e-mail message is a public record of the City of Corvallis. The contents may be subject to public disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law and subject to the State of Oregon Records Retention Schedules. (OAR:166.200.0200-405)
JudyDugan
On Jun 3, 2024, at 1:34 PM, Marjorie Stevens <greens...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/CAHc8n9skNWygBg9DSgA6h-v5YGm3pM7PHYm8-qyKA81nr9EAyA%40mail.gmail.com.